Far Cry

Disclamer: I'm being rather serious below.
Fictious Will...since you seem to know alot about the Source Engine(more than me), I was just wondering...what about when valve mentioned that its Core Components could be swapped out with newer tech with ease.

(Below is something I just thought)
If Source can be upgraded with relative ease...maybe it is planned to change into a more modular engine as it evolves from game to game.
 
The ease is very relative, yes. Source is modular in that it's written in object-oriented C++. It has a sound module, a display module, an input module, and so on. Any engine worth it's name will have it's functions delineated like this. Source is not designed to have critical components ripped apart though, at least not to the extent of other engines.

FarCry iirc, has all it's core functions packaged into different .dlls - crysound, cryinput, crybsp, and so on. Everything is built from the beginning with an idea of the final product in mind.

Id software, coding quake 1, could not have possibly forseen the demands source would put on essentially identical technology, and put that way it seems ludicrous that source can even compete. But it can, and my stance is that valve should quit while they're ahead.

The Unreal suite has it's own C-style scripting language used to tie engine modules together. The engine environment itself is also designed with a final product in mind. The benefits of a unified solution and truly modular engine design may be seen in tools like unrealed. The engine is the editor is the engine. It's only natural to use exclusively carving in ued to build bsp architecture, and have all elements of the engine seamlessly interconnected. Why not build a player model in the editor, rig and animate it, define AI in script and insert it into the game using one universal tool?

The result of haphazard unplanned do-it-as-you-go engine extension? Source, with it's model viewer and hammer editor and 3d modelling programs and face poser and the billions of compiling executables and conversion utilities running in command windows.

Yes it works in the end. Yes it can look nice. But behind the scenes are hacks upon hacks that at some point will cause horrific problems, and at that point it will be easier to start anew than try to hack in yet another fix or extension.
 
Farcry was underrated IMO. I loved the gameplay, good mixture of stealth and action. It did stealth excellent for an FPS. As for the plot and voice acting, I liked it. It was supposed to be cheesy, because the whole story wasn't really that serious
 
BRODIEMAN2k4 said:
Farcry was underrated IMO. I loved the gameplay, good mixture of stealth and action. It did stealth excellent for an FPS. As for the plot and voice acting, I liked it. It was supposed to be cheesy, because the whole story wasn't really that serious
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/farcry/index.html?q=Far+Cry
I don't think it was underrated. ;)
Just look at the review and the average out of almost 5,000 people.
 
True, the Crytek Engine is less advanced than Half-Life 2's Engine, but there were some truely shining moments in Far Cry. For me, for example :

During the second mission when you're on the carrier, you run around it until you come to a ladder up to the top of the carrier. In the background, a loudspeaker is saying "Delta Team alert, we have a intruder on board" before you go up. In other games, a "Team" usually consists of 4-5 people with medium guns, so I wasn't too worried. So, I climb up, and got a shock. A helicopter burst up from below the side of the carrier I was facing, peppering me with minigun fire. Meanwhile, I had to dodge behind some crates to stop a minigun pinning me from behind killing me as well, not to mention two guys hiding behind the barrels on my left. Then I was left with the eight guys charging me from my right, using crates as cover. Extremely hard ? Yes. Extremely satisfying ? Yes.

During Half-Life 2 (Or Halo or Halo 2, even on legendary) there was NEVER any combat as satisfying as that !
 
What an extremely immersive and challenging experience I had with Far Cry. At times, I think it reigns over the almighty Half-Life 2. It's just that fun.
 
joule said:
What an extremely immersive and challenging experience I had with Far Cry. At times, I think it reigns over the almighty Half-Life 2. It's just that fun.

Any game can reign over HL2, it's not as godlike as everyone puts it as... despite this being an HL2 fansite, meh.
It's really just an average shooter with physics, a gravity gun and realistic facial animations.
I haven't seen any mods come out that make me go :eek: yet. Of course this is all imo.

But offtopic much...
I think I'm going to be picking up Farcry today, it's only $17.99 at gamestop! :D
Hope I'm not going to regret this.
 
Treat it as a stealth game and you'll love it. Run in guns blazing, HL2 style and you'll get very frustrated.
 
Decent game but I found some parts frustrating and tedious. Then again I haven't even played through the whole game, only up to the Treehouse level. But I got it at a major discount, only $10 (CDN) at Staples. :D
 
Neo_Kuja said:
True, the Crytek Engine is less advanced than Half-Life 2's Engine

I always thought of it as the other way around.
 
Far Cry's supposed to be a stealth game? I just run trough and shoot everybody. Much more fun
 
Atomi said:
Far Cry's supposed to be a stealth game? I just run trough and shoot everybody. Much more fun
It's not really Splinter Cell stealth but it makes you think more than usual shooters.
 
Oh yeah, it does, indeed. Wether to shoot in the head or the occasional exploding tube next to the bad guy.

http://www.mbnet.fi/~attonttu/farc.avi

a clip I shot when playing. It sums up the game nicely. First you kill people, have fun in doing so and then you suddenly die and it's not so nice always.

that ftp isn't normally that slow.
 
The CryEngine is the best part about Far Cry, I could see something similar to it powering future MMOs.
 
bam23 said:
I always thought of it as the other way around.
yeah me too.

I've noticed that alot of people on this site are very fickle at times. In certain threads everyone thinks Far Cry sucks, and now everyone thinks Far Cry rocks. Same thing with the Halo games.

As for running and gunning the game, i did that a few weeks ago when i got bored and it was surprisingly alot more easy then stealthing the game. I still think games like Operation Flashpoint and No One Lives Forever did the exact same thing that Far Cry does a shitload better. Like 20 times better.
 
Prince of China said:
I was hoping Ubisoft would make a Prince of Persia game with the CryEngine.
Terrain is no big deal. HL2 could easily replicate it I'd say. I'd say PoP looks better.
 
The problem with the Source SDK and Far Cry's SDK is that both are suited for different things. Source is better suited for interior levels (better and more realistic radiosity and what not) and Far Cry is better suited for exterior (quicker to build landscapes and forests/jungles with it).

Both SDK's become an absolute bitch when you try to build the opposites.
 
No way. Source relies on bsp geometry. You can't have ultra-large areas without severe slowdowns, which is the whole reason why 3d skyboxes have to be small areas built outside the world and overlayed in.
 
Have you ever tried building interior's in Far Cry? Its a whole lot harder then it is in Source. I dont even know where to begin
 
In general, game developers and people in the industry would say HL2 is a far better game but the average gamer would say that they are about equal.

Devs recognize that HL2 took a lot of design and creativity. "Puzzles" (like finding car batteries to open a rebel gate or floating a ramp with barrels), atmosphere, or gameplay styles (like getting through sandtraps, setting up turret defences, commanding ant lions, etc) took weeks or months to imagine, implement, and test to make sure they play well and give gamers a new experience (things like world interactivity and NPC "acting" that devs have been hoping to push forward for years make also be an influence).

Gamers don't really look into how much "design" is put into the game because, in the the end, a small sequence in HL2 that took a week to produce may take only 1min to play through (and leave a lasting impact on some but not all). In comparison, a whole level in Farcry could probably be put together in a week and provide hours of gameplay. For the average gamer, both games (or maybe all games- painkiller, doom3, serious sam, etc) boil down to about the same thing.
 
Styloid said:
In general, game developers and people in the industry would say HL2 is a far better game but the average gamer would say that they are about equal.

Devs recognize that HL2 took a lot of design and creativity. "Puzzles" (like finding car batteries to open a rebel gate or floating a ramp with barrels), atmosphere, or gameplay styles (like getting through sandtraps, setting up turret defences, commanding ant lions, etc) took weeks or months to imagine, implement, and test to make sure they play well and give gamers a new experience (things like world interactivity and NPC "acting" that devs have been hoping to push forward for years make also be an influence).

Gamers don't really look into how much "design" is put into the game because, in the the end, a small sequence in HL2 that took a week to produce may take only 1min to play through (and leave a lasting impact on some but not all). In comparison, a whole level in Farcry could probably be put together in a week and provide hours of gameplay. For the average gamer, both games (or maybe all games- painkiller, doom3, serious sam, etc) boil down to about the same thing.

Coolest. HL2-related. Avatar. EVER.
 
Back
Top